I don't think people are qualified to reject this pattern unless they've spent some serious time working in these ecosystems. It took me a long time with a ton of production experience to evolve my thinking and truly appreciate CQRS/ES.
Like anything else, it's one tool in the tool bag, but like that giant pipe wrench that you're always looking for a reason to use, it's almost always the wrong tool for the situation. CQRS carries horrific complexity and requires commitment to a handful of golden rules or the entire thing comes crashing down.
> I don't think people are qualified to reject this pattern
I don't think most people are qualified to know what the hell this pattern truly is, much less put it into proper operational use. I've seen plenty of people attempt to use CQRS when they should have stuck to a simple CRUD model. At one point I was adjacent to a team that had built 8+ services to handle one or two trivial business processes.
CQRS isn't a fine wine or stinky cheese. If it smells funny for your case, it probably isn't the right choice.
What are the golden rules?
- Don't use the read side from the write side.
- Each aggregate should own its data (or more abstractly, the basics of DDD, bounded contexts[0]).
[0]: https://cqrs.nu/Faq
As with all software architecture, you need to adopt a concept to the problem at hand: following the "rules to the letter" is hardly useful. Most successful CQRS systems are those that do not follow every rule (e.g. let command handlers return response data make for a much more convenient workflow).
It's easy to read this and go "of course" for a small conceptual system, but in practice even really experienced engineers want to break those rules in production systems - and it's a lot easier to break those rules than fix the system to respect them.
This is the problem with CQRS. The answer to so many of these little tweaks depends on a ton of system knowledge and contracts and promises, and it's really really easy to make the wrong choice.
Fine - but it isn't a matter of rejecting or accepting; but rather of understanding. And if someone isn't "qualified" to reject a certain architectural pattern... then they probably won't be very good at implementing it either.
So on balance I'd rather be in an environment where people are allowed to "reject" what they don't fully understand yet -- rather than (pretend to) go along with it (on the basis of some article they vaguely read about it, or "because X said so.")
Having tried and failed to apply it shouldn't aautomatically generalize the failure to a problem with the tool, but rather to either its inadequacy to the use case, or its improper use (and this is useful learning as well).